Alan Kennedy’s comment - reflections
On our post, the Licensed Avian Influenza Vaccines - from the Horse’s Mouth
One of the great comforts for the two old geezers is the quality of the comments TTE receives. They reflect thought and an attempt at understanding complex issues. Unlike the complacent acceptance found in the declining mainstream media, these comments showcase a willingness to challenge the narrative.
Alan Kennedy’s comment on our post is well worth reflecting on.
Alan wrote:
“I freely confess I can only read this stuff as an exercise in logic. On that basis, this section (quite apart from the troubling words "not usually") is extremely difficult to follow. It seems to say consent to B was on the basis that B=A and there was already consent for A. But then it says B doesn't equal A, after all. Am I wrong to conclude that there was, therefore, no (inherited) consent available for B?
"Adjuvanted Zoonotic Influenza Vaccine As a Regulation 56 Informed Consent application, this product was a duplication of the Aflunov licence and as previously stated, used Aflunov as the cross-reference product. No bioequivalence studies were conducted, and bioequivalence studies are not usually required for this type of application. It should be noted that a later variation in the product lifecycle registered a zoonotic strain change from A/turkey/Turkey/1/2005 (H5N1) like strain to A/Astrakhan/3212/2020 (H5N8)-like strain and thus this vaccine is no longer a duplicate of Aflunov."